How Iran Assertions Turn Into ‘Facts’

The New York Times today (12/8/11), reporting on the CIA drone that went down in Iran, refers in passing to the

recent public debate in Israel about whether time is running out for a military strike to slow Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon.

Of course, the assumption here is that Iran is making “progress towards a nuclear weapon.” That is what some political elites and many in the media say, but that doesn’t make it true. And there is no evidence to support that assertion. And basing a debate around an assumption that might be entirely false is, of course, a problem. (Consider the run-up to the Iraq invasion, 2002-03.)

Today’s piece also includes what some might read as justification for the secretive surveillance program over Iran:

In Iran, among other missions, it is looking for tunnels, underground facilities or other places where Iran could be building centrifuge parts or enrichment facilities. One such site, outside Qum, was revealed by President Obama and the leaders of France and Britain in 2009, though it appears that Israel played a major role in detecting that site.

This is a strange assertion, since many accounts have suggested that the facility was revealed by Iran. In fact, that’s how the Times reported it last month (11/9/11):

Iran told the nuclear agency about that facility days before President Obama and European leaders reported its existence two years ago, and Iran has recently said it is moving some of its nuclear activity to that underground facility, at a well-defended military base.

Related

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

“[R]ecent public debate in Israel about whether time is running out for a military strike to slow Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon.”

The implied proposition is that the development of an Iranian nuclear bomb is a fact.

“One wonders if the editors of the New York Times have stopped beating their wives.”

The implied proposition here is that the editors of the New York Times have, in fact, been beating their wives. See how this works? This is a tactic that can easily be used by any ignorant dirt bag to influence those who are selectively, and perhaps willfully, skeptical.

It seems fishy that Iran decided to come clean days before Obama was going to make the information public. Iran probably didn’t have a choice but to admit it, a pre-emptive calculated disclosure. Of course, if the New York Times has information relating to the discovery of this site, they should disclose that info rather than making implications about Israel’s responsibility. At least Israel took out Iran’s long range missle depot. As much as I hate the war-hysteria, it’s hard to see Iran as entirely innocent in the whole matter.

What credibility does any of them have? Obama, the CIA, the NYT, and Israel leadership are liars, war criminals; and must be scrutinized; but never given the benefit of the doubt!

In fact, they constitute the gravest danger to everyone, including themselves. What a disgrace that the world has not produced a sane and glorious political stage of political development.

Looking at the embarrassing presidential contest underway in the US, where Obama does not have any primary challengers, which means to me, they have been threatened convincingly not to; and the array of republicans are a sick comedy for sure.

And that is why ONLY Pure Democracy can deliver us from fraud called electoral politics! National Referendums, Initiatives, and indictments for the instigators of wars of aggression and the verdict rendered by direct popular vote.